UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4005
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RAYMOND LAMONT WATLINGTON, a/k/a Lamont
Watlington,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-04-141)
Submitted: June 17, 2005 Decided: July 18, 2005
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Harry L.
Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Lamont Watlington pled guilty to attempted bank
robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2000). Watlington
was sentenced to 55 months’ imprisonment, followed by five years’
supervised release. Watlington appeals his sentence, arguing the
district court erred in applying the federal sentencing guidelines
as mandatory in violation of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct.
738 (2005).
In Booker, the Supreme Court held that the mandatory
manner in which the federal sentencing guidelines required courts
to impose sentencing enhancements based on facts found by the court
by a preponderance of the evidence violated the Sixth Amendment.
125 S. Ct. at 746, 750. The Court remedied the constitutional
violation by severing two statutory provisions, 18 U.S.C.A.
§§ 3553(b)(1), 3742(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), thereby making the
guidelines advisory. See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540,
546 (4th Cir. 2005).
Watlington does not challenge any enhancements to his
sentence, so we need not consider whether his sentence violates his
Sixth Amendment rights. Under Booker, in reviewing sentences that
do not involve a Sixth Amendment violation, this court applies the
plain error and harmless error doctrines in determining whether
resentencing is required. Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 769; see Fed. R.
Crim. P. 52(a) (appellate court may disregard any error that does
- 2 -
not affect substantial rights). The harmless error standard
permits an error at sentencing to be disregarded if the reviewing
court is certain that any such error “did not affect the district
court’s selection of the sentence imposed.” Williams v. United
States, 503 U.S. 193, 203 (1992). Here, because the district court
imposed an alternate discretionary sentence that was identical to
the guideline sentence, the error inherent in the application of
the guidelines as mandatory did not affect the court’s ultimate
determination of the sentence nor Watlington’s substantial rights.
Accordingly, we affirm Watlington’s conviction and
sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -